The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that letting customers listen to a short 20-second sample of a ringtone before buying it does not violate copyright laws.
In a decision written by SC associate justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC en banc upheld the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) that dismissed the complaint of the Filipino Society of Composers and Publishers (Filscap) against Wolfpac Communications for copyright infringement and damages.
Wolfpac develops mobile phone apps and distributes them through partner networks such as Smart Communications.
Filscap, which collects royalties for songwriters and composers, objected to a Smart newspaper ad that allowed customers to preview ringback tones online before purchasing. Filscap claimed this required a license and payment of royalties.
Wolfpac argued there was no copyright violation because there was no public performance – the samples, which were free and had no independent commercial value, were only listened to privately by potential consumers.
Wolfpac also claimed that it had deals with the composers authorizing the public performance of their music by converting them into downloadable ringtones.
The RTC ruled in Wolfpac’s favor, saying that the 20-second ringtone preview did not count as public performance. It also said the preview was allowed under the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material without needing the owner’s permission.
The RTC explained that it is normal for consumers to sample a product before deciding to buy it. Since Wolfpac was using the short clip for promotional purposes and had agreements with the composers, it did not need a separate performance license.
The SC agreed with the RTC.
Copyright is violated when someone uses a protected work without permission in ways that go against the owner’s rights, such as performing, copying, or distributing it for profit.
However, the Intellectual Property (IP) Code allows certain exceptions. These include private performance done for free or use of the work for teaching, information, charity, or religious purposes.
There is also no copyright infringement if the use qualifies as fair use. This is determined by looking at four factors:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is for profit or non-profit educational purposes;
- The nature of the work;
- How much of the work is used; and
- The effect of the use on the value of the work.
In this case, the SC found that Wolfpac’s agreements with the composers did not specifically cover the use of song samples for previews. However, it ruled there was no copyright infringement because the previews qualified as fair use.
The 20-second previews help potential customers make informed decisions before downloading a ringtone. While the SC found the sample length to be substantial, it considered it reasonable and necessary to achieve Wolfpac’s goal of informing users about the ringtones.
The SC also said the previews do not harm the composers or replace the value of the copyrighted work. The samples are not meant to entertain and cannot be downloaded, so they do not substitute for the paid ringtones.
The SC emphasized that the fair use doctrine “allows the courts to deviate from strictly applying copyright laws when their rigid application would stifle the creativity that they are designed to foster and when it would frustrate the State’s function to promote the diffusion of knowledge and information… The courts must weigh the factors with great care and in consideration of the interests of both the creators and the public.”
The SC also clarified that ringtone previews are not considered public performances but rather a form of communication to the public.
Under the IP Code, public performance means playing recorded sounds in a place where people outside a private group can hear them.
In contrast, communication to the public refers to making works accessible through broadcasting, cable, satellite, or the internet, allowing people to access them anytime and anywhere.
A person infringes on the right to public performance if they play or perform a copyrighted work in public without permission.
Meanwhile, the right to communication to the public is violated when someone makes the work available to the public by transmitting it through wire or wireless means.
In this case, the SC found that the preview is a form of communication to the public because it allows users to access the song samples online, at a time and place of their choice.
In his concurring opinion, senior associate justice Marvic Leonen agreed that using song samples was fair use, as it was a reasonable and necessary way to promote the songs by someone who was already authorized to use them.
Associate justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, in his concurring opinion, noted that since Wolfpac did not have the composers’ express permission to use the song samples, it was important to determine whether the use qualified as fair use.
Associate justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, in her concurrence and dissent, disagreed, asserting that Filscap’s member-composers gave their consent for the advertisement of their works under their agreement.
In his concurring and dissenting opinion, associate justice Rodil V. Zalameda said the previews were too short to have any real impact and were used only to identify the songs and convince consumers to buy them.
Associate justice Japar B. Dimaampao, in his concurring opinion, emphasized that although the song samples were used commercially, Wolfpac did not intend to use them for profit. Instead, the previews helped protect consumers by letting them listen to the songs before deciding to buy.
Associate justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, in her concurring and dissenting opinion, disagreed, stating that the ad of the previews harmed Filscap’s copyright because they primarily promoted Wolfpac’s mobile services platform, rather than simply encouraging ringtone downloads.
